Law Repressing Social Media, Bloggers Now In Effect In Russia

An anonymous reader writes On Friday, Russia implemented a new law that significantly limits its citizens' online free speech. Under this new law, social media sites must "retain user data for at least six months...within the country's boundaries so it can be available for government inspection." Also, "bloggers with at least 3,000 daily readers must register with Roskomnadzor, the regulator that also oversees Russia's main media outlets." This, of course, means that popular bloggers will no longer be able to remain anonymous.

next...

[guygo]

the Berlin Wall goes back up.

At least better than many western countries

[Anonymous Coward]

USA retains it forever, no matter what laws are in place.

At least the Russians are being upfront

[oDDmON oUT]

Unlike the US/NSA.

Mr Obama;

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

The 80's called and they want to know if you need a foreign policy.

Re:next...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Iron Curtain

And yes.

Re:At least the Russians are being upfront

[Savage-Rabbit]

Unlike the US/NSA.

No, the NSA is monitoring social media and bloggers, in Russia they have progressed from just monitoring to repressing them. I'm in no way in favor of what the NSA is doing but there is a difference between watcing bloggers and telling bloggers they have to register if they get a hitcount over 3000 or suffer the consequences, whatever they may be.

Re:the USSR is back

[gymbrown]

I remember as a kid reading the Soviet Union’s constitution giving Soviet citizens more rights than the US. They had a very good constitution and Canada had none. I thought that in Canada, there was no protection similar to our first amendment but Canadians could say, type and publish their thoughts freely. The Soviet union required typewriters to be registered with a typing sample so unauthorized speech wouldn’t contaminate the citizens. Russia is going down the same hole as the Soviet Union and we are following close behind.

Re:next...

[epyT-R]

Uh what? No, the left wants to increase the size of state. The neocons want to use that state to enforce laws that benefit their corporate benefactors. Of course, there is cross over, too, as democrats have many corporate backers and repubs certainly have ideological tenets they want pushed on the population.

Too bad neither of them remember what individual liberty is.

Re:next...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, wait a sec. Do you both actually believe that the damage can be blamed on any ONE party?

Context

[Livius]

Not that it makes this kind of policy, but Russia has had authoritarian governments for 500 years. What's the US's excuse?

Re:next...

[fustakrakich]

There is only one party. Bickering factions are what we see on the TV. It plays well to a wide audience.

Re:next...

[sumdumass]

This no true scottsman argument is getting tiresome. It seems that whenever someone points to the flaws in communist regimes, someone has to point out how it isn't really communism.

  Well here is the problem with that. Whenever is implimented, it fails to follow pure theory and runs into some authoritarian nightmare because it has to be forced onto people who do not want to settle wigh the less that the theory allows or do extra with no extra reward to make it work.

Communism simply does not scale outside micro groups dedicated to making it work.it has nothing to do with leaders wrapling themselves up in pretty cloths or hero worship. It has to do with forcing people to accept it. Like it or not, all attempts have snd will continue to devolve into some brutal fascist reality that you can clsim is not communism snd suggest it be tried again.